A panel of leading environmental groups expressed concern last week over findings in an Ontario Energy Board commissioned report that suggest oil tanker trains could replace TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline if the project isn't approved. 

“We believe the report makes a number of flawed assumptions on rail capacity, and actually goes beyond the oil industry’s own projections,” Ben Powless, a panel presenter at the province's Energy East stakeholder meeting and pipeline community organizer for Ecology Ottawa, said.

The energy board's report, written by Navius Research, estimates the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of the pipeline — which is project to carry 1.1 million barrels of oil per day — will be "modest" since the oil could could just as easily be brought to market by rail.

“It is highly unlikely that 1.1 million barrels of oil or even half of that could be shipped by rail,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence Canada, countered. Scott and Powless joined panel members from the Council of Canadians and the Ottawa chapter of 350.org to argue against the report's findings at a stakeholders meeting on Energy East in Ottawa last week.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) projects oil-by-rail in Canada will only hit 700,000 barrels per day by 2016. Even if sufficient additional rail capacity were proposed, the panel found it “overly optimistic” to assume public support in light of recent oil tank car explosions, such as the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic.

“We have trouble believing more oil-by-rail won’t cause public opposition,” Powless said.  

Climate impacts of Energy East debated

Navius’ report is one of only two studies assessing the GHG emissions from a fully operational Energy East pipeline. By assuming Energy East’s 1.1 million barrels will be extracted regardless of the pipeline's approval, the report sees only a 1.2 and 10.2 megatonnes-of-carbon increase in Canada’s carbon footprint due to Energy East. 

“Energy East will likely increase emissions from 'well-to-tank' (extraction to refineries) in the rest of Canada, but the impact is likely to be relatively modest,” the report concludes.

Navius’s findings differ greatly from the first study on Energy East’s potential GHG emissions by the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based energy think tank:

“The crude production needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would generate an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year — the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada’s roads.” 

The Pembina study does not assume oil-by-rail will replace Energy East if the pipeline is not constructed, leading to constraints on production in the oil patch.

Ontario’s environmental leadership on the line with Energy East

“Energy East is Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Keystone," Muthanna Subbaiah of the Ottawa chapter of 350.org said at the meeting. 

"President Obama said he will veto Keystone XL. Wynne needs to reject Energy East.” 

The province has talked much about being a climate leader and is hosting an international climate summit this summer, but attracted criticism over its position on Energy East. Ontario Premier Wynne recently stated her government will only consider the GHG emissions from Energy East that occur within Ontario, meaning the climate impacts from developing oil in the Alberta oilsands will be excluded from consideration.

Navius’ report for the Ontario Energy Board finds the pipeline will cause an 0.4 per cent increase in GHG emissions in Ontario. These emissions will be almost exclusively from pipeline pumping stations running on either natural gas or Ontario's relatively clean electricity.

“The Ontario government needs to step up and protect us,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, told the audience attending the public meeting.

The panel also voiced concerns about TransCanada’s safety record, the effects of a oil spill on the province’s natural environment and the fact TransCanada’s application for the pipeline is incomplete.

“I don’t know of a clearer warning than the Kalamazoo spill,” Harden-Donahue stated.

The Kalamazoo spill in Michigan in 2010 remains the largest inland pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, and cost well over one billion dollars in cleanup costs. The Enbridge pipeline ruptured when the pipeline's external polyethylene tape coating became unglued, allowing moisture to corrode the pipe.

Ninety-nine kilometers of the existing natural gas pipeline TransCanada plans on converting for the Energy East project in Ontario is coated with polyethylene tape.

Image Credit: Ecology Ottawa

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Woodfibre LNG in Squamish has announced it will run its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant off electricity from the B.C. grid, rather than using natural gas  — making it the province’s first LNG producer to commit to do so.

Using electricity to power its cooling compressors will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 80 per cent and decrease local air pollution, according to the company.   “We sought input from the community at an early stage and ‘air quality’ was a top concern,” said Byng Giraud, vice president of corporate affairs for Woodfibre LNG. “Our engineers have now confirmed that going electric is indeed feasible, so the choice is a clear one.”

Woodfibre is a small-scale project about one-tenth of the size of the large projects proposed on B.C.’s north coast.

“It’s setting a great standard for the others to follow,” said Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada. “If B.C. is going to develop an LNG industry then the carbon footprint of the industry has got to be as small as possible.”

Liquefying natural gas involves cooling gas to -162 degrees Celsius, at which point it turns into a liquid and shrinks in volume by 600 times, making it possible to transport on ships. However, this process takes enormous amounts of electricity.

Power company TransAlta estimates electricity demand from LNG facilities in B.C. could total 4,000 MW by 2018 — that’s about four times the power that would be produced by BC Hydro’s proposed Site C dam on the Peace River.

"Cleanest LNG in the world:" What does it mean?

In 2012, Premier Christy Clark told a World Economic Forum in China that B.C. has “set a goal to have the cleanest LNG in the world. We want our LNG plants to be principally fueled by renewables."

Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for LNG development, also said in 2012: “We’re trying to stay away as much as possible from having to use gas for power.”

This week, Coleman changed his tune, telling the Globe and Mail: “The cleanest means to me that we will beat any other gas-fired plant in the world.”

“That is Rich Coleman lowering the bar from what Premier Christy Clark and in fact Rich Coleman has said in the past,” Smith said.

She noted that if three of the larger LNG plants up north were to commit to using renewable energy instead of gas, it would reduce carbon pollution by the equivalent of taking three million cars off the road each year.

LNG can be powered by renewables: new study

Clean Energy Canada has argued that B.C. could create 400 more permanent regional jobs (a 45 per cent increase) and cut carbon pollution by a third without undermining competitiveness if it required LNG producers to primarily power their facilities with renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

Coleman dismissed that idea this week, saying: “The cost to deliver the power [to a large LNG plant] would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment.”

Clean Energy Canada disagrees. The group recently commissioned a feasibility study by Navius Research, a consulting company that has worked with the B.C. government, and Steve Davis & Associates, a firm providing British Columbia power developers with advice.

The study found that any LNG facility on B.C.’s North Coast could reliably power its production facilities with renewable energy — affordably and on schedule using established commercial technologies.

The study, to be released next week, also found powering an LNG plant via renewables would reduce carbon pollution by 45 per cent and increase local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.

“What we have modeled is using new renewables from the north coast,” Smith said. “It’s economically feasible and technically feasible. It will add a two per cent cost to the sale of gas, which in the world of gas is negligible."

A poll conducted by NRG Research Group in October 2013 found 91 per cent of British Columbians polled stated it was either “very important” or “somewhat important” that proposed LNG plants maximize their use of renewable energy.

Next week, 1,200 delegates from around the world will be in B.C. for the province’s second annual International LNG in B.C. conference. There are 14 LNG projects proposed for B.C., although only a handful are expected to be built.

Photo: Rich Coleman at revenue-sharing agreements announcement between the province and First Nations by Province of British Columbia

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.